Greeting MD Claimants

[Moochie]

I've enjoyed reading the MDC files from time to time for quite a while now. On the few occasions that I venture further into the forums to see what's going on, I am consistently surprised and disappointed at how forum members treat applicants. You may not be representatives legally of the JREF, but you are representatives of the group you claim membership in - skeptics, or, perhaps, 'the enlightened'. And based on what I've read here, if that's what being enlightened means, then I don't want to be enlightened any time soon.

Many of you seem to say that by coming on the forums, MDC applicants open themselves to your behavior, that they are, in essence, 'fair game'. Well, think about it this way. If I invited you over to my house and then I started calling you names, whose fault is that? Well, you didn't have to come over to my house, now did you? It's really too bad. I come here hoping for an interesting read, but usually all I get is an eyeful of vitriol.

The problem with this kind of post, for me in any case, is that we have no idea of what constitutes "good behavior" or "bad behavior" towards applicants to the MDC, or anyone else, for that matter, in the mind of its author. Personally, I think if the MA is adhered to when responding to claimants' or anyone else's posts, that should suffice.

Having said that, it doesn't escape me that in general, claimants who appear here are not in full possession of any number of their faculties, and that in some very real way they are entertained by the JREF more as a source of entertainment than anything else -- a happenstance that in itself could be rightfully criticized, and is a reason why, I think, the entire enterprise of the MDC should be euthanized.

ETA: As another poster has pointed out, there is nothing to compel applicants for the MDC to post here at all, so suggestions that they be treated deferentially if they do so are quite unwarranted, in my opinion.

Come on, the communications between claimants and forum regulars, frivolous or not, form a valued part of the tapestry claimants must traverse on their journey to obscurity.



M.

 

[chillzero]

Are you referring to "simple requests" to treat MDC applicants deferentially beyond mere compliance with the MA? Then I disagree.

I'm not talking about moderation issues at all. I'm talking about - as I would have thought obvious by now - simple politeness and good manners.

I'll refer you back to post 50 in case of any further confusion, most specifically:

Members here do not speak for the JREF: however, RemieV and Jeff Wagg do. Jeff has asked (more than once, iirc) for people to show a little more restraint and respect when dealing with applicants.

 

[tsig]

I never called anyone a jerk. You're either delusional or a fraud for saying that.



If by now you can't understand the difference between official representation of the foundation and the casual association people will make with the members here posting in-line with the JREF, then I find it sad that you won't open your eyes and see the truth in front of you. Or maybe you do understand, and you're just a fraud.

UncaYimminy:
"make the JREF look like a bunch of jerks."

So we just look like jerks.

I find it sad that you have to resort to personal attacks. Guess it's only MDC challengers that get the good treatment from you.

The last person that wanted me to open my eyes and see the truth was a woo, are you?

Is fraud your new term for liar?

 

[chillzero]

Perhaps the point was simply that calling people frauds is not really conducive to reasonable discussion, because no-one likes it, do they?

 

[dann]

Frauds are not really conducive to reasonable discussion, which is why it is necessary to distinguish between the self-deceived and the frauds.
The frauds probably don't like being called frauds, and they hate to be exposed as frauds.

 

[chillzero]

But just how quickly some people jump to the conclusion that the person involved is a fraud ... without much evidence, or any interaction.... can be surprising and disappointing.
And calling them delusional instead is also not very conducive to discussion. If they are self deceived, as I was when I first came here, aggression is not the way to encourage them to look deeper into the matter.

I'd like to consider the way Rosemary Hunter was talked about here - I'm thankful for her sake she didn't join up - compared to how the JREF handled her at her test. As I said - the JREF lead by example, and I find it a shame some are so reluctant to follow that example; particularly when requested to by the site owners.

 

[tsig]

Perhaps the point was simply that calling people frauds is not really conducive to reasonable discussion, because no-one likes it, do they?

Are you really trying to claim that what he posted was supposed to be an object lesson for me?

 

[chillzero]

I'm not claiming anything. I was merely pondering.

 

[tsig]

But just how quickly some people jump to the conclusion that the person involved is a fraud ... without much evidence, or any interaction.... can be surprising and disappointing.
And calling them delusional instead is also not very conducive to discussion. If they are self deceived, as I was when I first came here, aggression is not the way to encourage them to look deeper into the matter.

I'd like to consider the way Rosemary Hunter was talked about here - I'm thankful for her sake she didn't join up - compared to how the JREF handled her at her test. As I said - the JREF lead by example, and I find it a shame some are so reluctant to follow that example; particularly when requested to by the site owners.

Maybe you could start the ball rolling by removing UY's post were he calls me delusional and a fraud. Or is it only the MDCs you got to be nice to, the rest of us are fair game.

I will post a new thread in the FM section for ideas that are off topic here.

 

[chillzero]

I'm not in this thread as a moderator. Report anything you think is a breach of the MA. Good idea to stay on topic here.

 

[tsig]

I'm not in this thread as a moderator. Report anything you think is a breach of the MA. Good idea to stay on topic here.

Posted new thread in FM called "MDC challenge"

As for reporting, well " I try to get by with a little help from my friends"lol

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimminy:
"make the JREF look like a bunch of jerks."

So we just look like jerks.

I find it sad that you have to resort to personal attacks. Guess it's only MDC challengers that get the good treatment from you.

The last person that wanted me to open my eyes and see the truth was a woo, are you?

Is fraud your new term for liar?

I think I just proved my point about how ineffective it can be to call someone a fraud or delusional. Thank you for such an excellent demonstration.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Does someone have something to say about any other specific applicants of the past years and about the constructive or non-constructive behaviour of forum members towards them? Forum nickname in brackets.

Mike Guska? (edge)
Ryan Whisler? (batman)
Adam Hugo? (supernaturalbeing)
Michael Anda? (Wellfed)
Ali Seifoori? (Ali)
Paul Carey? (naughtyrasputin)
JAK Keeran? (JAK)
Nicole Spiese? (nicolespiese)
Achau Nguyen? (Achau Nguyen)



Thank you for your continued interest.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'm not claiming anything. I was merely pondering.

And you were correct.

It just goes to show how normally clear thinking skeptics who usually consider all the variables will have a knee jerk reaction to being called a fraud or delusional. C'mon, like I'm gonna write thousands of words about how counterproductive those terms can be, then choose to use them myself. The fact that it didn't even cross his mind that an object lesson was a possibility demonstrates my point better than any argument I could have written.

It's sort of like how getting a claimant to take the test is far more powerful than any amount of logical reasoning.

 

[tsig]

I think I just proved my point about how ineffective it can be to call someone a fraud or delusional. Thank you for such an excellent demonstration.

Now do you have any proof that was your intention?

If you posted with the intent to deceive then you are a fraud.

In the future how is one to tell whether your posts are real or some artful ploy?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Now do you have any proof that was your intention?

Nope. Chillzero figured it out, though.

If you posted with the intent to deceive then you are a fraud.

Okay.

You'll never know for sure, though, will you? I could have just lost my temper. Either way, my point was still demonstrated.

In the future how is one to tell whether your posts are real or some artful ploy?

Same way you always have for me and for everyone else.

 

[tsig]

Nope. Chillzero figured it out, though.


Okay.

You'll never know for sure, though, will you? I could have just lost my temper. Either way, my point was still demonstrated.


Same way you always have for me and for everyone else.

The point demonstrated is that you will lie in your posts. You either lied to prove a point or lied about proving a point.

Your temper doesn't matter, what you post does. You intended to deceive and seem rather proud of that fact. Since I can't take anything you say at face value I see no way to communicate.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The point demonstrated is that you will lie in your posts. You either lied to prove a point or lied about proving a point.

Your temper doesn't matter, what you post does. You intended to deceive and seem rather proud of that fact. Since I can't take anything you say at face value I see no way to communicate.

I apologize for my error in judgment. I didn't actually believe that you would take me so seriously and not even consider that I was baiting you to prove a point. Lesson learned. For the record, I do not think you are delusional or a fraud.

 

[Zep]

Cheeky.

Yes, and UncaYimmy said:

"Chillzero, is there a thread where we can discuss how best to deal with MDC applicants?" ...followed by personal, unsubstantiated thoughts, opinions and rhetoric. You did read it, right?

Rule discussion is not allowed in this thread.

Moderated thread options are not allowed to be discussed here.

I would have thought they were great topics to "..discuss how best to deal with MDC applicants" but I was wrong.

Two things got me going: The implication that MDC applicants should get some special status, eloquently commented on by Zep and the whole respect nonsense.

Other than that a whole lot of condescending twaddle about how to be polite.

So where is the thread going?

Do UncaYimmy and Chillzero want some sort of special status for MDC applicants or not?

Politeness lessons I don't want. Thankyouverymuch.

I never asked for special status for MDC applicants...once they become applicants.

I asked for an initial show of politeness for people who just walked in the room. They may turn out to know nothing at all or have the whole idea of skepticism and the MDC utterly wrong, but they at least have the balls to turn up here and start.

 

[Zep]

Um, Zep? You should start saying good-bye to the forum members you like.

I am doing so, but not for this reason at all.

If you read what I wrote, you will see I asked for an initial show of politeness, until the poster became known and made their position clear. An "evaluation period", if you will.

Your link referenced the thread where The Professor is being discussed. He has long since become well-known on this forum and is well out of his evaluation period. He has made his position re the MDC crystal clear.

I'll be blunt: He's a utter self-promoting twat and pathetic at it to boot. His MDC challenge attempt was not even up the the level of a joke. Clearly he had an agenda, a transparently juvenile agenda - I don't think anyone missed that, did we? So why we even bother to reply to him any more is beyond me, but I'm not everyone else here nor a mod.

So have I made my position plain?

OK, Cya.